Prescribed Terrain Setup

[The Neverborn]

I've looked through the forums and I'm not sure where to post this. If I've chosen the wrong one would a kind admin move it please :) 

 

From about 7th ed onwards I've tended to prefer Melee armies, currently Orks, previously Deamons. 

 

With a melee army it's very difficult to do much when you're not in Melee and I've been shot off the board in the 1st or 2nd turn. Having looked at grand tournament games I've noted they seem to play with a lot more terrain than is typical in my games. By a lot i mean 1.5x to 3x of LOS blocking terrain.  I've taken advice from better players than myself on my getting shot off the board in turn 1 or 2 problem, one of the things that is common is hide your units better, pick your moment, position yourself to reduce incoming fire. The issue I have is this is quite hard to execute when there's not enough terrain on the board to hide maybe more than 1 unit, especially if you're using units with a large footprint. 

I've attempted to discuss this with my opponents before games, with very little success, especially if they play gun lines. I don't think they are "cheating" or trying to set favourable set up for themselves. I genuinely think they are maintaining what they perceive as the correct amount based on what they have done in the past. I know I'm not totally alone, having discussed this with other players who've noted the same dynamic. As opposed to my online persona, in real life I've got little desire to argue with someone for more than a minute or so. I'm more willing to accept that I'm going to get shot off the table turn 1/2 than spend time negotiating the correct amount of terrain as, among other issues, I feel it sets a combative vibe to the game.

I'm somewhat hoping that in a future edition Prescribed Terrain Maps for each mission are provided which may solve my problem.

Any hope in that? Am i wrong?

[DemonGSides]

These already exist.

 

https://www.warhammer-community.com/en-gb/downloads/warhammer-40000/

 

Find the Pariah Nexus tournament companion under Core Rules and Downloads and it gives you suggestions for terrain as well as what missions play well on it.

 

It does sound like your opponents are probably erring on the side of being strong due to map choice, so this might alleviate some of that.  With even close to "correct" amounts of terrain will make the melee army feel a lot more able to, y'know, play the game.

 

Be wary though; I've found gunline players to be a bit salty once they realize how overpowered they had it on a sparse table.  Might be a feels bad, but shouldn't be more of a feels bad than knowing you're going to lose due to play style preference. 

Edited March 11 by DemonGSides

[The Neverborn]

19 minutes ago, DemonGSides said:

These already exist.

 

https://www.warhammer-community.com/en-gb/downloads/warhammer-40000/

 

 

Yes I've seen these. And I've referenced them. There doesn't seem to be a lot of appetite for them in the games I've played in as they are not in the rulebook or the deck of cards you get with an expansion. - Apologies if that sounds silly but its the way it is....  

Edited March 11 by The Neverborn

[Dr_Ruminahui]

This isn't really a rules question, so I've moved it to Amicus, where it is also likely to get more views and responses.

 

I guess another tact is to direct him to the pictures in the rules showing example tables as an indication that the game is intended to be played with more terrain.  Another is to point out that you really aren't having fun, and that some sort of changes need to occur for you to enjoy your games together.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

I’m confused about how little terrain you have on tables to regularly be getting tables by shooting in a single turn…

 

in the old days the recommended method was to fill 1/4 of the table with terrain of all sorts, as much as you can for, and then just spread it out.

 

i don’t really pay attention to the official tournament type set ups.

 

these days I generally go with a big center piece type of terrain piece in the middle, small-medium terrain midfield flanks, a wall or barricade or something center front of each DZ, and then small ruins or something similar on the flanks of the DZ, and maybe some small bits of scatter terrain.

 

go to my profile and find the topics I made for the arkapeli 1st  dragoons and angels de Mari, and you’ll see pics from my games and how much terrain I use.

 

 

 

 

8 hours ago, The Neverborn said:

 

Yes I've seen these. And I've referenced them. There doesn't seem to be a lot of appetite for them in the games I've played in as they are not in the rulebook or the deck of cards you get with an expansion. - Apologies if that sounds silly but its the way it is....  

…then just go by the rule book examples?

 

next game take pictures of the table and terrain setup, and share here so we can see. Otherwise we have no idea if it’s a terrain issue, or a you issue.

Edited March 12 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[DemonGSides]

8 hours ago, The Neverborn said:

 

Yes I've seen these. And I've referenced them. There doesn't seem to be a lot of appetite for them in the games I've played in as they are not in the rulebook or the deck of cards you get with an expansion. - Apologies if that sounds silly but its the way it is....  

 

The main rule book also provides images and most of those tables shown should have enough where playing melee isn't terrible.  These downloadable rules are addendums by GW official and the only thing that have specific, building by building layout.  Maybe offer a compromise to at least pick the same amount of terrain and let player placed terrain at least be the way it gets set up to get the best of both worlds.

Crusade games don't give out specific terrain mostly, just the general deployments and objective layouts, but maybe I'm forgetting particular set ups.  Boarding actions have specific terrain a lot of the time, but if they're not even willing to entertain playing something that doesn't overly favor them I'm not sure what the fix is.

 

 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

Since it’s terrain related I’ll air my annoyance at how many tables I see get laid out.

 

a bunch of ruins depicting a city/town/village/etc. but they’re all at weird angles and no actual street layouts. I get people don’t want long LOS, so throw something else like a cargo container and/or wrecked vehicles in the streets to block some LOS.

[apologist]

The 'third army' should be a key part of planning and inform the game  – whether that's ensuring you've got a 'fair' mirror-layout for competitive Matched Play, or an interesting themed battlefield for Narrative Play. A good table helps with immersion and enjoyment, (at least, if they're set up with a setting mind, as @Inquisitor_Lensoven says; and not a weird laser-tag arrangement of random corner ruins), but also – as @The Neverborn is finding out to their cost – make a substantial difference to the balance of different armies.

 

Unfortunately, suggested terrain and table layouts are under-explored both by GW and the community. I'd love missions to come with guidelines for an ideal table to play it on, as it would encourage more creative and asymmetrical scenarios.

 

In the meantime, I suggest having a look through this thread on Dakka Dakka, to get a sense of how other groups set up their games of 40k. You'll find a lot of variety.

 

Personally, I've tended to adhere to Andy Chambers and Jervis Johnson's comments that 'the more terrain, the better the game'.

[DemonGSides]

Yeah even if the terrain is hills, everyone should be happier with more terrain as it's just more interesting. Maybe height variable terrain so those gunline armies can get some plunging fire to get a benefit like melee get from being untargetable?

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

1 hour ago, apologist said:

The 'third army' should be a key part of planning and inform the game  – whether that's ensuring you've got a 'fair' mirror-layout for competitive Matched Play, or an interesting themed battlefield for Narrative Play. A good table helps with immersion and enjoyment, (at least, if they're set up with a setting mind, as @Inquisitor_Lensoven says; and not a weird laser-tag arrangement of random corner ruins), but also – as @The Neverborn is finding out to their cost – make a substantial difference to the balance of different armies.

 

Unfortunately, suggested terrain and table layouts are under-explored both by GW and the community. I'd love missions to come with guidelines for an ideal table to play it on, as it would encourage more creative and asymmetrical scenarios.

 

In the meantime, I suggest having a look through this thread on Dakka Dakka, to get a sense of how other groups set up their games of 40k. You'll find a lot of variety.

 

Personally, I've tended to adhere to Andy Chambers and Jervis Johnson's comments that 'the more terrain, the better the game'.

The more terrain the better unless you have large monsters or tanks, that can’t move any where, and can’t see anything.

[The Neverborn]

21 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

The more terrain the better unless you have large monsters or tanks, that can’t move any where, and can’t see anything.

 

This is the other issue armies like Daemons have, exacerbated by the flight rules. Too little terrain and you're centre peace models are basically on display to 99% of the opponent's shooting 99% of the time. A Bloodthirster is a good example with it's huge wingspan and slightly lopsided pose, it can be difficult to block LOS. Too Much terrain and yeah you can hide him but you can't move him that much as he needs to negotiate round terrain, a Great unclean one is going to have an even harder job due to it's bigger base. If terrain is very dense you can even get into issues deep striking.

 

I am hoping that GW produce maps and possible terrain "tiles" eventually, as i feel it would allow them to balance the cost of the unit with the practical considerations. Any over or under sites can the be sorted out in post in updates. 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

42 minutes ago, The Neverborn said:

 

This is the other issue armies like Daemons have, exacerbated by the flight rules. Too little terrain and you're centre peace models are basically on display to 99% of the opponent's shooting 99% of the time. A Bloodthirster is a good example with it's huge wingspan and slightly lopsided pose, it can be difficult to block LOS. Too Much terrain and yeah you can hide him but you can't move him that much as he needs to negotiate round terrain, a Great unclean one is going to have an even harder job due to it's bigger base. If terrain is very dense you can even get into issues deep striking.

 

I am hoping that GW produce maps and possible terrain "tiles" eventually, as i feel it would allow them to balance the cost of the unit with the practical considerations. Any over or under sites can the be sorted out in post in updates. 

Yep.

im hoping for a bit more complexity in terrain rules tbh.

 

A difference between cover and concealment would be nice.

difficult terrain that slows units a bit.

currently pretty much all terrain is the exact same and it’s rather silly to me.

[Evil Eye]

Definitely agree that difficult/dangerous terrain, degrees of cover etc needs to make a comeback. As for more terrain being a hinderance for huge models, I hate to say it again but this feels like a problem brought on by GW's scale creep and insistence on forcing massive models into regular 40K.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

2 hours ago, Evil Eye said:

Definitely agree that difficult/dangerous terrain, degrees of cover etc needs to make a comeback. As for more terrain being a hinderance for huge models, I hate to say it again but this feels like a problem brought on by GW's scale creep and insistence on forcing massive models into regular 40K.

I agree, super heavies/lords of war really skew the game a whole lot.

[The Neverborn]

On 3/12/2025 at 1:20 AM, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

 

 

go to my profile and find the topics I made for the arkapeli 1st  dragoons and angels de Mari, and you’ll see pics from my games and how much terrain I use.

 

…then just go by the rule book examples?

 

next game take pictures of the table and terrain setup, and share here so we can see. Otherwise we have no idea if it’s a terrain issue, or a you issue.

 

Looking at the terrain set up in this  Example, there's something here that an experienced Daemon player will spot immediately.

 

As far as a Blood thirster goes there's 0-1 terrain pieces of terrain on this table, the same for a keeper of secrets accounting for a basic move-shoot on the other players turn. These models have such a big footprint it's close to impossible to hide them entirely here. Daemons exist in a all or nothing relationship with Terrain as they get no benefit from cover. They are also very expensive models, so you loose 1-2 of those a turn, by one/two it's basically over. (by shot off the board, I'm not referring to every unit being removed on turn one, just the army being ineffective on turn one/two.) 

 

Compare that to this terrain setup from WTC Timestamp, there's a world of difference. 

 

 

Edited March 15 by The Neverborn

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

17 minutes ago, The Neverborn said:

 

Looking at the terrain set up in this  Example, there's something here that an experienced Daemon player will spot immediately.

 

As far as a Blood thirster goes there's 0-1 terrain pieces of terrain on this table, the same for a keeper of secrets accounting for a basic move-shoot on the other players turn. These models have such a big footprint it's close to impossible to hide them entirely here. Daemons exist in a all or nothing relationship with Terrain as they get no benefit from cover. They are also very expensive models, so you loose 1-2 of those a turn, by one/two it's basically over. (by shot off the board, I'm not referring to every unit being removed on turn one, just the army being ineffective on turn one/two.) 

 

Compare that to this terrain setup from WTC Timestamp, there's a world of difference. 

 

 

Tanks also have a large footprint and are difficult to hide.

 

and guardsmen technically benefit from cover, but their save is already so bad not really considering how much AP-1 & 2 is out there.

 

you say they don’t benefit of cover, but that’s just because your whole army has invulnerable saves, something only the most elite units in other factions get.

 

being unable to hide one or two big center piece units shouldn’t cripple you or your army.

 

either you hide the big stuff at the start and hope they don’t have enough shots to overwhelm your invulns,  or you use your big stuff as sacrificial distractions. Units that cannot be ignored, but also take so much to deal with them it leaves most of the rest of your army intact.

 

 

Edited March 15 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[Marshal Mittens]

Personally i hate the games were 30%-50% of the minis are off the table turn 1. So i like a lot of terrain, though with some intentional fire lanes for tanks and such, but not into deployment zones. I like using a lot of terrain. 

[The Neverborn]

10 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Tanks also have a large footprint and are difficult to hide.

 

and guardsmen technically benefit from cover, but their save is already so bad not really considering how much AP-1 & 2 is out there.

 

you say they don’t benefit of cover, but that’s just because your whole army has invulnerable saves, something only the most elite units in other factions get.

 

being unable to hide one or two big center piece units shouldn’t cripple you or your army.

 

either you hide the big stuff at the start and hope they don’t have enough shots to overwhelm your invulns,  or you use your big stuff as sacrificial distractions. Units that cannot be ignored, but also take so much to deal with them it leaves most of the rest of your army intact.

 

 

 

This is the type of conversation that while I would be willing to have online, but I wouldn't be looking to have in person.

 

So I'd just set up, I'd look at my opponents army and I'd know that by turn two I'm going to be 25% - 40% of my points removed from the table. Sometimes I don't even bother closing the box i keep them in.  

 

This is why I'd like a prescribed terrain setup. I don't really mind which one is of the two is used. 

 

If GW assume I'm playing a setup with the picture's terrain , then I'd like the rules and model points written under that assumptions. If the assumption is the video link then those would be different. 

Edited March 15 by The Neverborn

[Lord_Ikka]

If you're not playing with WTC/ITC/GW tournament levels of terrain, melee armies are going to be at a massive disadvantage. Easiest solution- all terrain counts as Ruins, so it blocks LoS. That way you get some help pushing up the board without getting completely wiped out. In 10th ed, no army should be losing 25% of its points if it is going second- there should be enough obscuring terrain to hide most of an army. 

 

I play Knights as my main competition army and the only time I've lost so 25% of my army first turn is either from pushing up to get in range/LoS to fire on the enemy when I go first and then getting hammered by counterfire, or getting locked down by something like World Eaters or Space Wolves being able to push two-three really good 1st turn charges through. 

[N1SB]

Brother Neverborn, I totally hear you.  You already know the solution, you just have to "sell" that solution to your friends.

 

Summary: you just have to persuade your friends to try (official) tournament standard, so you're like playing with the broader meta.

 

This is NOT from nowhere.  Here's the story of how I got convinced.  The friend who really got me back into Warhammer, showed me the local FLGS in Hong Kong, but moved away, is probably my best 40k friend, Tourney Tony in Toronto.  He was a frequent tournament player when he lived here, he represented us in this Greater China competition between Hong Kong, Macau, Guangzhou, Shanghai, etc.  Then he moved to back to Toronto.

 

I called him up after he moved, we got talking 40k, there he told me, "We've been playing 40k wrong all this time."

 

I was like WUT and he explained what I think you know better than me on tournament terrain placement.  I don't remember all the details, and I don't play tournaments (in fact this edition all I played was Crusade Narrative games), but he described how they follow tournament standards in his meta, and it's across several stores.  He described how the 2 players are supposed to go back and forth, laying out terrain, until BOTH sides are satisfied, was the GIST of it.  So there's a lot of terrain.

 

The reason was his Toronto meta had a lot more tournament players; he described players like "oh, he's one of those in the LVO scene," referring to the Las Vegas Open, which is quite a high level of commitment.  I'll probably never go to a LVO, but the way he put it, that we've been doing it wrong all this time, got my attention.

 

He wasn't trying to sell me on it, but it got me thinking, I want to play in the same meta as everyone else.  40k was becoming more tournament aware.  Back when we had this conversation, Metawatch was starting to become a thing, like GW used tournament games to balance points costs.  So even though we're not playing in a tournament, by playing to tournament standards, it's like I wasn't just playing against my local friends here, I was playing with the entire Hobby worldwide.

 

(So even though I play only Crusade games, I like the official Crusade campaign books, it's like we're all involved in the same story.)

 

We just had a new Balance Dataslate out, and assuming your friends pay attention to it, it only makes sense to do so when you consider how GW balances using the tournament scene as a barometer.  It's part of the total game package.  We should be playing the same game under the same conditions, and terrain usage is part of that.

 

And I know to convince your friends might be IS easier said than done, but I recommend this please:

 

• Physically go to a local tournament as a spectator, talk to judges and tourney players about terrain
• Then use their talking points with your friends, so they can joint his broader meta that players use worldwide
• And finally, be prepared to buy, paint, supply the added terrain, take the burden off of them

 

(That last point is very relevant, so you're taking away their advantage, you're giving them more terrain to play with.)

 

What struck me reading your thoughts was it reminded me of what Tourney Tony said to me.  He didn't say, "You need to use more terrain."  He said, "We've been playing 40k wrong all this time."  At that time, the tournament scene was just becoming prominent, but seeing how that's setting the standard of the game via Balance Dataslates and new Points Field Manuals, it's like I want to be part of that broader meta, be part of the ocean instead of my little pool.

 

The above 3 things is what I'd try in your place, but the goal isn't "let's just add more terrain," it's "let's play a broader game with the world."

Edited March 15 by N1SB

[The Neverborn]

N1SB

 

Agreed, Agreed and Agreed more.

 

I just don't want to have to take the time to persuade every player I meet on all the above points, even if I did they won't all agree with me. If it's in a rule book, then the rules are there. 

 

Posters such as Inquisitor_Lensoven have different opinions from yours and mine. Maybe opinions can be changed, maybe they can't. 

I don't really mind who is "right" in terms of the "correct" amount of Terrain. I only want GW aware of the amount of terrain on the board, when the right the rules and set the points. 

I am hopeful this will eventually be the case, I think in later rulebooks/expansion packs we may start with "suggested" set ups and maybe move on to something more "standard" eventually. But, between now and there is probably 2-5 editions. 

Edited March 15 by The Neverborn

[DemonGSides]

4 hours ago, The Neverborn said:

 

This is the type of conversation that while I would be willing to have online, but I wouldn't be looking to have in person.

 

So I'd just set up, I'd look at my opponents army and I'd know that by turn two I'm going to be 25% - 40% of my points removed from the table. Sometimes I don't even bother closing the box i keep them in.  

 

This is why I'd like a prescribed terrain setup. I don't really mind which one is of the two is used. 

 

If GW assume I'm playing a setup with the picture's terrain , then I'd like the rules and model points written under that assumptions. If the assumption is the video link then those would be different. 

 

They kinda do, considering the rule book shows pictures of terrain set ups for both narrative and more competitive minded.  If your friends don't want to follow the tournament guides and also don't want to follow the main rule book, I'm not sure what more there is to say to those people.

[Antarius]

I get not wanting to argue with people, but if they are regular opponents, maybe try to make them think about whether it’s actually fun for any of you, if you get shot off the board so quickly.

I mean, most people do like winning, so they probably won’t think there’s a problem initially, but once they notice that their victory is basically automatic they might start thinking about whether it’s actually fun to play this way.

[Rain]

On 3/12/2025 at 7:21 AM, Evil Eye said:

Definitely agree that difficult/dangerous terrain, degrees of cover etc needs to make a comeback. As for more terrain being a hinderance for huge models, I hate to say it again but this feels like a problem brought on by GW's scale creep and insistence on forcing massive models into regular 40K.

Are you seriously suggesting that a primarch *shouldn’t* show up to every minor skirmish fighting over some supply crates?

[Rogue]

I always thought I had a lot of terrain on my table - four of the old Imperial Sector buildings, the killteam cathedral, lots of Mechanicus bits, half a dozen containers - until I played in a small doubles tournament at my FLGS last month. They had two big three-sided ruins in the middle, huge pieces in each deployment zone, and small bits elsewhere.

 

Suddenly, I could deploy all my infiltrators in cover - like, ten genestealers and a patriarch completely hidden unless my opponent was practically in my deployment zone. And there were whole areas of the board that were hard to target without significant repositioning. It felt like a different game.

 

And that's coming from someone who thought there was a lot of terrain on my own table. Apparently not.